Minutes of the 58th Meeting of the Monitoring Committee Held on 07.11.2016 at 3.30 PM in the Main Conference Hall at CMDA
The Monitoring Committee at CMDA, through its Vice-Chairman in charge and Convenor, recorded these minutes for its 58th meeting held on 7 November 2016. The minutes direct further scrutiny of building regularisation applications, publication of information about rejected applications and fire safety non-compliance, display of caution boards, and stronger enforcement against unauthorised or deviated construction.
What the minutes cover
The Monitoring Committee at CMDA considered building regularisation, fire safety, unauthorised construction and directions of the High Court. The meeting followed a High Court direction dated 1 November 2016 and also reviewed action on an earlier High Court order dated 18 July 2016.
These are committee minutes. They do not contain an individual building approval or a list identifying particular properties.
Regularisation applications
The Monitoring Committee recorded the following position on applications under Section 113-A:
- Final notices had been issued in pending cases, requiring proof that construction existed before 28 February 1999 within one month.
- About 95% of pending applications had been rejected because applicants provided no proof or insufficient proof.
- Cases supported by proof remained under scrutiny.
- Cases within the Member-Secretary's powers were to be disposed of by the Member-Secretary, CMDA. Other cases were to be placed before the Monitoring Committee.
- Sixty-nine multistoreyed building cases that had not yet been processed, along with other cases where responses were still being received, were to be scrutinised for the next meeting.
The Monitoring Committee also sought a list of 200 multistoreyed building cases approved under the regularisation scheme and recorded that 2,445 multistoreyed building regularisation applications had been rejected.
Fire safety and public warnings
The Directorate of Fire & Rescue Services reported 675 buildings as not complying with its norms, while CMDA reported 272. The Monitoring Committee directed the authorities to reconcile the figures, publish the correct number online and ensure that caution boards were erected at the relevant premises.
The list of 2,445 rejected multistoreyed building applications was also to be posted on the CMDA website to warn the public about fire safety non-compliance. The Directorate of Fire & Rescue Services could simultaneously erect caution boards at those buildings.
Enforcement and infrastructure
The Monitoring Committee called for stringent enforcement against buildings with rejected regularisation applications and other violations, initially targeting commercial buildings. Local authorities were encouraged to act against all categories of illegal construction, including while work was in progress.
Recommendations for using regularisation fees included multilevel or community parking in densely developed areas and community fire hydrants at suitable points, particularly in commercial areas. The committee also stressed coordination among CMDA, the Greater Chennai Corporation, the Directorate of Fire & Rescue Services, TANGEDCO, the Directorate of Town and Country Planning, the Transport Department, Metrowater and the Collectorate.
This summary is generated from the source document to help you find what is relevant. The PDF above is authoritative. For advice on your own property, use LandLens One or speak to a qualified professional.
Common questions
Do these minutes regularise any particular building?
No individual building is identified as regularised in the minutes. The record describes how pending applications were being scrutinised and who would decide different categories of cases.
How can I find out whether a multistoreyed building application was rejected?
The Monitoring Committee directed CMDA to post the list of 2,445 rejected multistoreyed building regularisation applications on its website.
Why might a building have a caution board at its premises?
The minutes direct caution boards for buildings that do not comply with fire safety norms. They also contemplate boards at multistoreyed buildings whose regularisation applications were rejected.
What proof was required for a pending regularisation application?
Applicants were required to provide proof that the construction existed before 28 February 1999. The minutes state that applications were rejected where no proof or insufficient proof was furnished within the specified time.
